Skip to main content

About your Search

20130126
20130203
STATION
MSNBC 29
MSNBCW 29
CSPAN 18
FOXNEWS 13
CNN 9
CNNW 9
CSPAN2 9
WRC (NBC) 6
KGO (ABC) 4
WETA 3
WJLA (ABC) 3
WMAR (ABC) 3
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 164
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 164 (some duplicates have been removed)
on whether she has left america's foreign policy in stronger or weaker position. most think the future lies with china than the u.s. it's not all mrs. clinton's fault. but the fact is we just don't have the influence we used to have around the world from syria to mali, we have led from behind, so in effect the former secretary of state has helped manage our decline in what looks increasingly like a post american world. and that's the memo. now on to the top story. another view on this, joining us now from new york, fox news contributor julie ragenski and former advisor to frank lautenberg and president rosenberg a center left think tank and campaign advisor to president clinton. all right, simon, tell me, where did i go wrong there on judging mrs. clinton? highly intelligent, global celebrity. >> yep. >> incredible run from first lady to senator to secretary. why was this a great tenure as secretary of state? >> first of all agrow agree with the negative characterization. i think we are safer today in the world than when barack obama took office. i think there have within two central legaci
't extreme and chuck schumer would not endorse somebody, his views on foreign policy are middle of the road. he wouldn't endorse somebody who was extreme. i think his vietnam experience is important. it's been noted and it's important that you now have at state john kerry and you would have at defense chuck hagel, two veterans of vietnam who look back and say we are ib clind to be very cautious before we commit american lives to any kind of foreign intervention. we want to be able to tell the troops. and hagel has characterized himself as an old sergeant, wants to tell the truth, so we need to make this fight. i think the good thing this hearing if it went there instead of just kind of particular attacks or questions to hagel, if this hearing went to a larger discussion of president obama's foreign policy because in broad terms hagel is with obama. obama's view is this is a moment when we need to pull back a bit, rebuild at home, and rethink some of these commitments. the americans are tired of war at this moment, and i think hagel really represents that exhaustion with the war and the desi
the speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. if it's carried out, i will resist it. in march 2008 you said, quote, here the term "quagmire" could apply. >> what are these? the full bright hearings? i lived through them? this is kind of like a 1970s movie where you go back into the past where it never even happened. why is he fighting with him about vietnam. >> it's interesting. he's fighting with him over iraq but it seems to be vietnam. he seems to be mad that hagel took issue with him about iraq and compared it to vietnam being the big blunder, which, of course, hagel and mccain both served in. when mccain talks about iraq, he only wants to talk about it from the surge on. it's as if everything before that didn't happen and didn't count and we ask still debate whether it worked or not but the big decision is whether it was as big as vietnam. and he didn't want to have that argument. >> he dug into his ankle here and he wouldn't let go. let's listen again. back again to the old war. >> were you co
of a foreign service officer. learning about foreign-policy around the dinner table each night to this service in combat -- his service in combat in vietnam. less well known is the story of this foreign policy work inside dissonant. -- the senate. his 90 overseas trips that he made in 28 years on foreign relations committee, his work to ensure free elections in the philippines, his work with aids in africa, his work as chairman of the new start treaty and his very public and successful diplomatic intervention in afghanistan, pakistan, and sudan. historians will judged his senate years on his impact on foreign policy much the same way so many people recognized ted kennedy's impact on domestic policy. from his many years in the u.s. senate, he has developed a very personal understanding that we represent not just states or governments, but also people. i once asked john why he loves the senate. he said it is the pride he feels in trying to get things done for people. for three years now, he has been working quietly to help a father from massachusetts, whose two sons were kidnapped and taken to
be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. were you correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> when given a chance to respond, here is what hagel said. >> the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since vietnam was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into iraq. >> that point found broad support in our latest nbc news/"wall street journal" poll with nearly 6 in 10 americans saying the entire iraq war was not worth it. let's remember that the mccain/hagel grudge goes way back to comments, well, like these. >> well, i think our invasion and occupation of iraq represents one of the great blunters of american history, and we will pay a high price for this for a long time. >> now, that would be in march 2008. you remember, it's the year that barack obama won his first term as president defeating none other than john mccain. do you think mccain is still angry that hagel backed obama? holding a judge? no, never. if mccain played the betrayed besty, fellow republican lindsey graham took the role of disappointed dad over his r
true? >> it is fairly important. >> thinly vailed as an exploration of his foreign policy positions, the game was more gotcha than global strategy. >> but i'll -- >> sdeshs your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the search. >> i'll explain why i made those comments. >> i want to know if they were right or wrong. that's a direct question. i expect a direct answer. >> if you would like me to explain why. >> i actually would like an answer. yes or no. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i feel it's far more complicated than that. >> the nominee for defense secretary was reportedly asked to claire fews his hiss position on nuclear disarmament. it proved more an opportunity for senators inhoff and graham to show that he is in favor of immediate elimination of all nuclear weapons. chuck hagel wasn't having any of it. >> my position, some of the individuals national security leaders as senator nunn talked about, including himself, has never been unilateral disarmament. ever. never. we have over the years which i have supported the united states has led in red
the shuffle going on in the president's cabinet. today, the focus is on the foreign policy team. tahman bradley is watching the ever-changing lineup and joins us from washington with more. hi, tahman. >> reporter: hey, rob and sunny. clinton is out, kerry is in. and chuck hagel, a republican, who you would think would be a bipartisan pick is under furnd. john kerry takes over today. will hillary clinton run for president. >> i don't know how else to say it but i'm going get back into my life again. this is going to be new for me. i don't know how i'm going to react to it, to be honest. >> reporter: senator kerry takes over. president obama's choice to run the pentagon is a different story. former senator chuck hagel, a vietnam veteran, took heavy fire from his own party. >> were you correct or incorrect when you said the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in the country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things. >> you refuse to answer that question. >> reporter: he was hammered by gop senators
foreign policy blunder since vietnam? correct or incorrect? yes or no? are you going to answer the question? the question is, where you're right or wrong? that is a pretty straightforward question. i would like for you to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> i am not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> hagel finally gave the answer on the surge that he wanted to give. >> i saw the consequences and suffering and horror of war, so i did question a surge. will this be worth the sacrifice? we lost almost 1200 american during that period was it required, necessary? >> how much of that exchange was political, how much was personal, and how much was related to the defense policy? >> 92, 11, 13. a lot of it was personal. one could not watch those hearings without feeling there were a lot of personal grudges but, even vendettas, being settled. >> center cornyn of texas says he cannot support a nominee for defense secretary who thinks we should be tougher on israel and more lenient on iran. is that a fair characterization of chuck hagel? >
said that the surge would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam"? were you correct or incorrect? yes or no? >> my reference to the surge -- >> are you answering the question, senator hagel? the question is were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like the answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things. >> well, let the record show you refused to answer that question. now please go ahead. >> well, if you would like me to explain why -- >> i actually would like an answer. yes or no? >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i think it's far more complicated than that. >> senator mccain and a lot of republican washington is banking on the lesson learned from the iraq war, being that we should have started that war, we should have escalated that war, we should have kept that war going, and now ten years on our only regret about the iraq war should be that we're not still there. and the only thing w
, there seem to be two approaches to foreign policy in the twenty-first century. one of the neo conservatives which have great power in this administration. check name names which i will not do. >> i do in this book. >> the new conservative ideological approach to foreign policy seems to be prevalent now as opposed to the traditional national interest pragmatic approach or is there some other approach? what do you see in the twenty-first century? >> i see a policy regardless who the president is of clear national interest and a policy must be for any nation whether it is the russians or the chinese, all nations, all individuals respond in their own self-interest, nothing wrong with that. that is predictable. the policy of our country, foreign policy, all the instruments of power it that you use to frame a policy must be driven with some higher purpose. i mentioned purpose, we lost purpose. we have been about ricocheting crisis to crisis. there's no strategic thinking, hasn't been strategic thinking for a long time in our foreign policy. it is the point i keep making. so does dick lugar who is
by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam if it is carried out, i will resist it." you continued on and on talking about what a disaster the search would be, even to the point where it was clear the search was succeeding. in march 2008, you said, "the term " quagmire could apply. even as late as august 29, 2011 , in an interview with the financial times, you said, "i disagree with president obama and his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq ." do you stand by those comments, senator hagel? >> i stand by them because i made them. >> were you correct in your assessment? >> i would defer to the judgment of history. >> were you write are wrong about the search? >> i will explain why i've made those comments. >> i want to know whether you are right or wrong. i expect a direct answer. >> it we reviewed the record -- >> please answer the question -- were you correct or incorrect when you said that the search would be most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? correct o
think the speech gimp last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam, if it's carried out, i will resist it. and then, of course, you continued on and on for months afterwards talking about what a disaster the surge would be. even to the point where it was clear, the surge was succeeding. and in march 2008, you said, quote, here the term "quagmire" could apply. if that's not a quagmire, what is. even as late of august 29th, 2011, 2011, in an interview with the financial times, you said, i disagreed with the president obama, his decision to surge in iraq. as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq. do you stand by that -- those -- those comments, senator hagel? >> well, senator, i stand by them, as i made them. >> you stand by -- were you right? were you correct in your assessment? >> well, i would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out. >> but the committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge. >> i'll explain why i made those comments. >> i want to know if you're r
represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam it's carried out, i will resist it. and then, of course, you continued on and on for months afterwards talking about what a disaster the surge would be, even to the point where it was clear the surge was succeeding. in march 2008, you said, quote, here the term quagmire could apply. if that's not a quagmire, then what is? even as late as august 29, 2011, in an interview, 2011, in an interview with the financial times, you said i disagreed with president obama, his decision to surge in iraq as i did with president bush on the surge in iraq. do you stand by that -- those comments, senator hagel? >> well, senator, i stand by them because i made them. >> were you right? were you correct in your assessment? >> well, i would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out -- >> the committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge? >> i'll explain why i made those comments. >> i want to know if you were right or wrong. that's a direct question, i expect a direct answer. >
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam. if it's carried out, i will resist it. in march 2008 you said, quote, here the term quagmire could apply. >> what are these, the fulbright hearings all over again? i lived through them. and this guy is going back into some "last year at marienbad" kind of weird 1970s movie where you go back into the past that never even happened. why is he fighting hagel over vietnam? >> well, it's interesting because he's ostensibly fighting with him over iraq, but it immediately becomes over vietnam. he seems to be mad that hagel took issue with him about iraq and compared it to vietnam being the big blunder, which, of course, mccain and hagel both served in. you know, when mccain talks about iraq, all he wants to talk about is from the surge on. it's as if everything before that didn't happen and didn't count, and we can still debate whether the surge worked or not, but the bigger issue is whether iraq was as bad as vietnam, and he doesn't want to have that argument. >> here is mccain sinking his teeth into hagel's ankle here, and he w
has made haiti one of the top foreign policy projects, helping the impoverished island build back better after the devastating earthquake that killed over a quarter million people. in no small measure has her husband -- president clinton -- been a part of that attempt at restoration of haiti from that devastating earthquake. last week during secretary clinton's final appearance before the senate foreign relations committee, she said -- and i quote -- "every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "united states of america" touches down in some far-off capital, i feel again the honor it is to represent the world's indispensable nation. madam secretary, you have truly honored us with your indispensable leadership. and on behalf of all of our senate colleagues, we want to thank you for your extraordinary service to this country. and i want to say that your position will be in capable hands with our colleague and your former colleague, senator john kerry, who will serve as we confirm him in the next 24 hours as the 68th secretary of state. senator kerry has served in this
. it usually happens at the start of a second term. today, the focus is on the foreign policy team. tahman bradley is watching the ever-changing lineup and joins us from washington with more. hi, tahman. >> reporter: hey, rob and sunny. a lot of action with president obama's cabinet. kerry is in at state, clinton is out. and chuck hagel, a republican, who you would think would be hailed as a bipartisan pick, is under fire. senator john kerry takes the oath of office today as secretary of state, replacing hillary clinton who heads off to retirement with a big question still lingering, will she run for president? >> i don't know how else to say it but i'm going get back into my life again. this is going to be new for me. i don't know how i'm going to react to it, to be honest. >> reporter: senator kerry takes over after cruising through confirmation in the senate. president obama's choice to run the pentagon is a different story. former senator chuck hagel, a vietnam veteran, took heavy fire from members of his own party for his opposition to the 2007 troop surge in iraq. >> were you correct
of the president's meek foreign policy. it was score one for hillary and i think this was an attempt to kind of build on that and move beyond it and talk about hillary clinton's legacy as a whole rather than that event. >> chris: i want to pick up on that, brit. during the hearing what struck me was the republicans were tough on hillary on benghazi. the democrats weren't. both sides kept saying what a great secretary of state she had been and to praise her service. some of the accomplishment. helped assemble the bombing campaign in libya to topple khadafi. assembled the coalition with the toughest sanctions ever on iran and established diplomatic ties with burma. >> i think the examples would add up to a case for her competence. they do not add up to a case for greatness. the groundwork on burma had been ton by the previous administration and the administration properly followed through on it. are arabs and israelis closer to peace? how about iran and north korea and the nuclear programs? halted or seriously set back? has the reset with russia which she so famously introduced with the photo
't manage to put benghazi into the broader context of the president's weak foreign policy which i'll be important to them when they deal, for instance with the hagel nomination. so it was score one for hillary and i think it was an attempt to build on that and move beyond it and talk about her legacy as a whole rather than that event. >> chris: i want to pick up on that, brit. because, during the hearing, what struck me was the republicans were tough on hillary, on benghazi and the democrats weren't. but, both sides kept on saying what a great secretary of state she had been and to praise her service. and here's some of the points that have been brought up, some of her accomplishments. she helped assemble the bombing campaign in libya, to topple muammar qaddafi. she helped assembly the coalition that imposed the toughest sanctions ever on iran. and, she established diplomatic ties with burma. question, brit: how do you rate hillary clinton's performance, record as our top diplomat. >> i think those examples you cited would add up to a case for her competence. they do not add up to
or incorrect when you said that the surge would be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since vietnam? were you correct or incorrect? >> my -- >> yes or no. >> my reference -- >> can you answer the question, senator hagel? the question is, were you right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> well -- >> i would like to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no answer -- >> well, let the record show you refused to answer this question. now, please go ahead. >> if you would like me to explain why -- >> i actually would like an answer. yes or no. >> well, i'm not going to give you a yes or no. i think it's far more complicated than that, as i have already said. my answer is i'll defer that judgment to history. as to the comment i made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since vietnam was about not just the surge but the overall war of choice going into iraq. >> i think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it. >> s
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 164 (some duplicates have been removed)